#LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 

I FORCE COLLECTION.] 1 

# ^ — . # 

J UNITED STATES OP AMERICA. J 



THE 






AND THE 



®mta©^l( 



CONSIDERED, 






BY A CITIZEN OF MARYLAND. 



iSaltCmore: 

PUBLISHED BY E. J. COALE & CO. 

JOHN n. TOY, PRINTEil. 

1822. 



.. % 






'<^< 



W ■■ 



M 



-o 



^ISl^i^BfSSJmi?!'. 



A CONSIDERABLE impression having been made upon 
the public mind, against the Maryland Resolutions in 
favour of the appropriation of public land for the pro- 
motion of education, by the ad verse resolutions of Mas- 
sachusetts, it was thought important by some persons, 
who felt an interest in the accomplishment of the ob- 
ject proposed by the former, that the numerous errors 
in point of fact, as well as argument, in the report, 
which led to the adoption of the latter, should be made 
known. It was thought expedient also, that objections 
from othjer quarters, originating either in misapprehen- 
sion or misrepresentation, should be answered, and the 
true merits of the question discussed and explained. 
The writer of the following remarks, being requested to 
undertake the task, has consented, but has been obliged 
to execute it in haste, amidst other avocations, which 
hardly left him an hour without interruption; a circum- 
stance, which he thinks it necessary to mention, as an 
excuse for the negligence of style and want of method, 
which will be apparent to the critical reader. He 
thinks it proper to mention, also, in order to avoid the 
imputation of plagiarism, that he has heretofore pub- 
lished several pieces in newspapers, in answer Jio ob- 
jections, raised against the Maryland Resolutions, and 
that, to save himself time and trouble on the present 
occasion, he has incorporated parts of those pieces, 
verbatiirif into the present essay. 



THE 



M1.^?1LAI?1E) ^ig@:L^f 2®l?Si. 



J HE Maryland Resolutions, in relation to the appro- 
priation of public land for the purposes of education, have 
attracted much attention throughout the union. The Legisla- 
tures of a majority of the states, it is believed, have passed 
concurrent resolutions. Some of the rest have not definitely 
acted upon the subject, and others have passed adverse resolu- 
tions. This diversity of proceedings might naturally have been 
expected in relation to a measure, novel in its character, affecting 
in different ways and degrees the several states of the union, and 
involving considerable difficulty in details, although all should 
concur in approving its object the general education of the 
people. 

Without stopping to prove, what all the enlightened friends of 
freedom, of virtue, and human happiness acknowledge, the pre- 
eminent importance in a republican government of diffusing 
amongst those, with whom all political power originates, the 
means of acquiring a knowledge of their rights and a capacity 
to judge of the qualification of their agents, we shall proceed at 
once to an examination of the plan, proposed by the Legislature 
of Maryland, for the accomplishment of so desirable an object, 
and of the objections which have been raised against it. 

In the prosecution of this examination, we shall endeavour to 
shew. First, The real meaning and extent of the Maryland 
Proposition;— <S'econ(?/?/, That its accomplishment is not only 
perfectly consistent with, but demanded by justice; — and. Lastly, 
We shall discuss the mode of carrying it into effect. Under these 
Several heads, we shall attempt to give a satisfactory answer to 
tJie objections, wliich have been made to that proposition, and 



6 

which naturally divide themselves into those, which have arisen 
from a misconception of it;— from an impression that it is un- 
just; — and from an apprehension, that the difficulty of its exe- 
cution is insurmountable. 

The Maryland Proposition is contained in the following 
resolutions, viz; 

"Resolved, hy the General Jlssembly of Maryland, That each 
of the United States has an equal right to participate in the 
benefit of the Public Lands, the common property of the union. 

"Resolved, That the states, in whose favour Congress have not 
made appropriations of land for the purposes of education, are 
entitled to such appropriations as will correspond, in a just pro- 
portion, with those heretofore made in favour of the other states." 

To the first resolution, no objection, it is believed, has been, 
or can be made. 

In discussing the merits of the second resolution, it is not 
deemed necessary to trace, with the committee of the Maryland 
Senate, the title of the union to the public lands. They are 
admitted, on all hands, to be the common property of the people 
of the United States. It is necessary, however, to understand the 
course, which Congress have pursued in disposing of this common 
property, which is subjected to their entire control by the third 
section of the fourth article of the Federal Constitution. 

The Maryland Committee state, that, "By the laws relating 
to the survey and sale of the public lands, one thirty-sixth part 
of them has been reserved and appropriated in perpetuity for the 
support of common schools. The public lands are laid off into 
townships, six miles square, by lines running with the cardinal 
points; these townships are then divided into thirty-six sections, 
each a mile square, and containing 640 acres, which are desig- 
nated by numbers. Section, No. 16, which is always a central 
section, has invariably been appropriated, (and provision has been 
made by law for the like appropriations in future surveys,) for 
the support of common schools in each township. 

"In Tennessee, in addition to the appropriation of a section in 
each township for common schools, 200,000 acres have been 
assigned for the endowment of colleges and academies. Large 
appropriations have also been made in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, 
Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri, Michigan, and the 



North Western Territory, for the erection and maintenance of 
seminaries of learning of a higher rank than common schools." 

Without pretending to precision in their calculations, the 
Maryland Committee estimate the donations of land to seminaries 
of learning of a higher class to be equal to one fifth pai't of the 
appropriations for common schools. As the General Government 
are bound to continue this system of appropriations for common 
schools by a compact between the United States and each of the 
states formed out of the public lands, (which will be hereafter 
noticed) the Committee proceed to shew, that the number of 
acres appropriated, and to be appropriated for the purposes of 
education in the new states and territories on the east of the 
Mississippi will be 7,909,903. They shew also that the aggregate 
number of acres to be applied to the same object on the west of 
that river will be 6,666,666 2-3; which number, added to the 
former, makes, 14,576,569 2-3 acres. 

The object of the Maryland Committee in making these calcu- 
lations, manifestly is, to excite the public attention, by its im- 
portance, to a system of appropriations of national property for 
the purposes of education, to the use of a. part only of the states, 
which seemed to have attracted but little notice; for immediately 
after it they say; 

"Such is the vast amount of property, destined for the support 
and encouragement of learning in the states and territories, 
carved out of the public lands. These large appropriations of 
land, the common property of the union, will enure to the exclu- 
-siue benefit of those states and territories. They are appropriations 
for STATE and not for national purposes; — they are of such a 
nature, that they might have been extended to all the states; 
they therefore ought to have been thus extended." 

When this system first began, upon the admission of Ohio into 
the union, with a population of a few thousands only, before a 
proper estimate was put upon the value of the public lands, as 
property and a source of revenue, it was calculated to excite but 
little attention. It was natural, that, on the admission of other 
states, Congress should, to save the trouble of repetition, refer 
back to the act giving admission to Ohio, and grant the same 
terms; and we presume, that few people in the United States ever 
reflected upon the extent and amount of the bounty of Congress 



for literary purposes to the new states in the west, Kentucky 
excepted, until their attention was drawn to it by the Maryland 
Report. To rouse that attention, and to claim for the states^ 
which had been neglected, a participation in that bounty upon 
principles of equity, was clearly the leading motive of the 
Maryland Committee. 

From several statements, which have appeared, and particu- 
larly a report upon the subject to the Legislature of Massachusetts, 
by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
this object of the Maryland Committee seems to have been mis- 
understood. The Massachusetts Committee suppose, that a 
statement of the amount of the public lands, and the amount of 
appropriations for schools, which will ultimately be assigned to 
the states and territories, formed out of the public lands, was^ 
made for the purpose of augmenting the amount, to which the 
states, that have had no grants for the purposes of education, 
would be entitled. Hence you find that committee saying; "they 
cannot avoid remarking upon the extraordinary nature and 
amount of these estimates and deductions. The boundless and 
trackless regions of Louisiana, for instance, which are yet not 
only unexplored, but over the greater part of which, even the eye 
of an American citizen has never wandered, is [are] taken to be 
a present valuable and available fund, out of which, in their 
whole extent, reservations may be made; and, therefore, that the 
old states have a right to claim a quantity of land, proportionate 
to these reservations,./© he set off to them, within the settled states 
and territories'.''^ Then, after describing those regions as of little 
value, they proceed to say. "If these lands can be taken into the 
amount for the purpose of swelling the quantity upon which our 
proportion is to be calculated, all being taken, as it is to be, of 
equal value, we cannot perceive, why it would not be equitable 
to satisfy our claim out of the same lands." They then add in 
a manner, very much resembling a sneer, which we regret to per- 
ceive, in those representing so grave and respectable a body as 
the "General Court" of Massachusetts, while speaking of a pro- 
ceeding of a sister state, entitled in every way to respect; "But 
the grant of a few hundred or even a few millions of acres, upon 
the upper branches of the Yellow Stone River, along the eastern 
slope of the Rocky Mountains, or even upon the vallies of the 



Columbia River, would hardly be regarded as a favour by 
Maryland or Massachusetts, especially if they were under obli- 
gation to survey them for a century to come." In another part of 
the Masssachusetts Report, we find the Committee speaking "of 
that part of the claim of the old states founded upon a compu- 
tation of the 400,000,000 acres, not yet sold, surveyed, or 
explored." 

Now it appears to us, that the Massachusetts Committee have 
not examined the Maiyland Report and Resolutions, upon which 
they are commenting for the instruction of the Legislature, with 
the degree of attention necessary to accuracy in their statements. 
We have read over the Maryland Report and Resolutions with 
great care, and cannot discover that, in any part of them, "the 
boundless and trackless regions of Louisiana are taken to be a 
present valuable and available fund, out of which in their whole 
extent reservations may be made." Nor that the jVlary land Com- 
mittee contend, that "the old states have a right to claim a quan- 
tity of land proportionate to these reservations, to he set off to them 
within the settled states and territories.'^^'— ^ot do we find, that 
"these lands," meaning "the boundless and trackless regions of 
Louisiana," "are taken into the amount for the purpose of swelling 
the quantity upon which our proportion is to be calculated." 

The Massachusetts Committefe seem from the above quotations, 
as well as other passages in their Report, to have fallen into the 
strange mistake of supposing that Maryland claims for herself 
and other states an appropriation of public lands for the purposes 
of education, hearing some sort of proportion to, (what proportion 
is not stated) and in some ivay or other depending upon, th^ 
amount of public lands, owned hy the United States. If the reader 
will take the trouble of referring back to the Resolutions of tlie 
Legislature of Maryland, set forth in the beginning of these re- 
marks, he vAW perceive, that the object of those Resolutions 
clearly is, to obtain of Congress, for the states which have re- 
ceived none, grants of school lands, hearing a just proportion to 
those ivhich have already been made to others. The claim set up 
would be equally valid, and the same in amount, if appropriations 
of land for the purposes of education had heretofore been made 
?n favom- of ene state only, instead of all the states and territories 



10 

formed out of the public lands.* It has no relation to, or de- 
pendence upon, the quantity of those lands. It would have been 
precisely the same which it is now, if Louisiana had never been 
purchased of France. It holds this language to Congress; 
"You are bound to treat all the states with impartiality. You 
have made grants of land for the promotion of education, to some 
of the states; now make grants to the others, for the same purpose 
and in just proportion." The Maryland Legislature does not un- 
dertake to determine, what that proportion is, under what 
restrictions, or in what form, or on what conditions, or in what 
place, whether in the settled or the unsettled states and territories, 
the grants ought to be made; but leaves all these matters to the 
wisdom and justice of Congress, the only competent power to 
decide. 

The above train of argument will serve to shew, that, as the 
extension of the present system of reservations of school lots to 
all the "boundless and trackless regions of Louisiana" will not 
affect, either the amount or the validity of the claim set up bj 
Maryland, so neither has the speedy sale of "every acre" of the 
public lands any bearing upon the subject. Although it may be 
"well to mention, as another instance of the liability of the Mas- 
sachusetts Committee to misapprehension, that they represent 
the sale of "every acre" of the public lands as "an event, of the 
certain and speedy accomplishment of which the Legislature of 
Maryland seem to entertain no doubt." From what source the 
Committee received an impression, which justified them in attribu- 
ting to the Maryland Legislature so extravagant and preposterous 
an expectation we know not. Of one thing we are certain, they 
could not have derived it from the Maryland Report. 

Again, the Massachusetts Committee have mistaken the valua- 
tion of the school sections at two dollars per acre, in the 
Maryland Report, as an estimate of their joresenHnstead of their 
future value, (which last from the use of the future tense was 
manifestly intended) and thereby have thrown an air of exaggera- 
tion over the whole calculation of the Maryland Committee. 

*ln<leed, tlie amount to be claimed would be greater, for, in the case supposed, 
all the states e:seept the favoured one, would have a riglit to join in the claim for 
a proportional share. 



11 

Again, the Massachusetts Committee consider Congress as at 
liberty to discontinue the appropriation of the school sections, 
wherever the rights of purchasers have not intervened, and to 
abolish the system entirely in the future disposition of public 
lands, wherever no part of a township has been sold; and they 
think it "quite manifest," that the school "reservations cannot be 
regarded as a grant to any state,'''' "or to thejoeo/i/e of any state.'' 
"The state governments," say they, "have no control over them and 
can make no disposition of them." Surely the compact entered 
into between the United States and Ohio, to be found in the act 
passed in 1802, for its admission into the union, and which has 
since been extended to all the other states successively formed 
out of the public lands, must have entirely escaped the notice of 
the Massachusetts Committee. That compact is in the following 
words, viz; 

"Sec. r. The following propositions are hereby offered to the 
convention of the eastern section of said territory, when formed, 
for their free acceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by tlie 
convention, shall be obligatory upon the United Stales; 

"First, That the section number sixteen, in every township, 
and where such section has been sold, granted, or disposed of> 
other lands equivalent thereto, and most contiguous to the same, 
shall be granted to the inhabitants of such township, for the use 
of Schools. 

"Secondly, That the six miles reservation, including the salt 
springs, commonly called the Scioto Salt Springs, the salt springs 
near the Muskingum River, and in the Military Tract, with the 
sections of lands which include the same, shall be granted to the 
said state, for the use of the people thereof, the same to be used 
under such terms and conditions as the legislature of the said 
state shall direct; Provided, The said legislature shall never sell, 
nor lease the same for a longer period than ten years. 

"Thirdly, That one twentieth part of the nett proceeds of the 
lands lying within the said state, sold by Congress from and after 
the thirtieth day of June next, after deducting all expenses inci- 
dent to the same, shall be applied to the laying out and making 
public roads, leading from the navigable waters emptying into the 
Atlantic, to the Ohio, in the said state, and through the same; 
such roads to be laid out under the authority of Congress, with 



12 

the consent of the several states through which the roads shall 
pass; Provided always. That the three foregoing propositions 
herein offered, are on the condition, that the convention of the 
said state shall provide, by an ordinance, irrevocable without the 
consent of the United States, that every and each tract of land 
sold by Congress, from and after the thirtieth day of June next, 
shall be, and remain, exempt from any tax laid by order, or under 
authority of the state, whether for state, county, township, or any 
other purpose whatever, for the term of five years from and after 
the day of sale." 

To say, after reading the above extract, that Congress are at 
liberty to discontinue the school reservations in a single town- 
ship in any part of any of the new states, is to say, that the 
United States may violate their faith and break their solemn 
compact. The propositions contained in it were made by Con- 
gress to the Convention of the state and accepted by it. And it 
will be found by turning to the statute book of Ohio, or of any of 
the other states, having school lands, that the legislatures of those 
states are constantly in the habit of passing laws respecting the 
management and use of them, from which it appears, that the 
state governments have every sort of control over them, except 
the power of selling them and converting them to other uses, than 
those specified in the compact, by which they are granted. 

Under this erroneous impression respecting the powers of 
Congress, and of the new states, the Massachusetts Committee 
make the following remarks, viz; "Considering these school 
reservations, beyond townships actually sold, as altogether con- 
tingent, depending upon the will and judgment of Congress, and 
to be affected by varying views of policy, your Committee cannot 
but regard, with extreme surprise, the language of the Legisla- 
ture of Maryland, in which they speak of the whole 14,576,000 
acres, being the aggregate of what these reservations will be, 
throughout the whole of the unsurveyed territory of the United 
States, as land, which 'has already been given to the favoured 
States and Territories,^ and thereupon to found a demand for an 
immediate allowance of a proportionate amount in behalf of tlie 
excluded states." 

We think no comment whatever necessary upon the foregoing 
paragraph of the Massachusetts Report, farther than to state, what 



« 



13 

will probably cause the reader "extreme surprise," that the 
words, quoted as the language of the Legislature of Maryland, 
which the Massachusetts Committee "cannot but regard with 
extreme surprise," are no where to he found in the Maryland 
Report. 

The last mistake into which the Massachusetts Committee 
have fallen, in imputing views to Maryland, which are not to be 
found in the only official document published on the subject, is 
contained in the following words; "The legislature of Maryland 
proposes that they [the lands] should be distributed amongst 
these states in proportion to their respective superficial extent." 
They were led into this error, most probably, by a calculation 
which is made in the Maryland Report for the purpose of shewing 
the aggregate amount, to which the states, that have received no 
school grants, would be collectively entitled upon the basis of 
territorial extent, to ascertain which it M^as necessary to make a 
statement of the tei-ritorial extent of each state. For reasons, 
to be found in the third division of these remarks, in which we 
propose to discuss the best mode of carrying the principle of the 
Maryland Resolutions into effect, we think the territorial basis the 
best for ascertaining the aggregate amount of land, to which the 
Atlantic states and Kentucky are in equity entitled. But the 
reader will discover, by referring back to the Maryland Resolu- 
tions, that no proposition whatever is made as to the amount, which 
justice requires they should receive, the form in which the lands 
should be granted, or the manner or proportions in which they 
ought, when granted, to be distributed. The General Assembly 
of Maryland leave those matters entirely to Congress, by whom 
alone the decision can be made. In short, Maryland simply, 
asserts the justice of the claim, but does not presume to point 
out the mode in which justice should be done. 

We ought, perhaps, to have stated before, that the only 
Reports and Resolutions, adverse to those of Maryland, which 
we have seen, and we believe the principal ones, which have been 
made and adopted by legislative bodies, are those of Ohio and 
Massachusetts. An adverse Report was made to the House of 
Representatives in the state of New York by a Committee, but 
no resolutions were appended to it, and we believe the Report was 
never acted upon at all, and, if at all, by one branch only of the 



14 

Legislature. The course which Ohio has taken is perhaps not to 
be wondered at; but that of Massachusetts* has excited much 
surprise throughout the country, and if we are rightly informed^ 
in Massachusetts itself. It wears the appearance of great disin- 
,terestedness, and her decision, from this circumstance, as well as 
the high respectability of her Legislature, is calculated to have 
much weight on public opinion, and to raise some opposition to 
the accomplishment of an object, essential, as we think, to the 
ends of justice, to the prevention of state jealousies, to the wel- 
fare of the country, to the elevation of the national character, and 
to the pej-manence of our free institutions. It is on this account, 
that we have thought it important to point out the errors of 
the statement in regard to the Marylajvd Proposition, upon the 
faith of which the Legislature of Massachusetts, if we are rightly 
informed, decided, without examination and ivithout debate. 



Having now shewn what we conceive to be the real meaning 
and extent of the Maryland Proposition, and endeavoured to 
correct tlie misconstructions put upon it, we will now lay before 
the reader the reasons, wliich have led us to the conclusion, that 
its accomplishment is not only consistent with justice, but re- 
quired by it. 

In discussing this part of the subject, I shall make free quo- 
tations from Mr> Maxcy's Report to the Senate of Maryland. 

The principle, with which he sets out, is too plain and too 
obviously just to be disputed. It is this; that the common pro- 
perty of the union ought to be applied to national purposes only, 
and that when it is appropriated to the use and benefit of any 
partiadar state or states, to the exclusion of the others, the spirit 
of our national compact and the principles of justice are 
violated. 

Applying this principle to the public lands, he says; "So far as 
these lands have been sold, and the proceeds been received into 
the national treasury, all the states have derived a justly propor- 
tionate benefit from them; — So far as they have been appropriated 
for purposes of defence, there is no ground for complaint; for the 
defence of every part of the country is a common concern; — So 



# 



15 

far, in a word, as the proceeds have been applied to national, 
and not state purposes, although the expenditure tiiay have been 
local, the course of the general government has been consonant 
to the principles and spirit of the Federal Constitution. But so 
far as appropriations have been made, in favour of any state or 
states, to the exclusion of the rest, where the appropriations would 
have been beneficial, and might have been extended to all alike, 
your committee conceive there has been a departure from that 
line of policy, which impartial justice, so essential to the peace, 
harmony, and stability of the union, imperiously prescribes." 

He then proceeds to shew, by a calculation, which we took 
notice of in the beginning of these remarks, the am.ount of public 
lands, that have been and will be bestowed on the new states 
and teiTitories, formed out of them, for the promotion of educa- 
tion exclusively within their limits. 

If Congress have power to promote education in one state by 
the donation of land, it surely has the same power to benefit 
the- others in the same way, or to the same extent in a different 
way, if circumstances should render a different way expedient. 
To show, that the new states have no claim to school grants, 
which is not equally possessed by the others, the followino- train 
of reasoning is used in the Maryland Report; 

"The circumstance, that the lands, which have heretofore been 
appropriated for the purposes of education, are a part of the ter- 
ritory of the states, for whose benefit they have been assigned, 
can furnish no reasonable ground for the preference, which has 
been given them. The public lands are not the less the common 
property of all the states, because they are situated within the 
jurisdictional limits of the states and territories, which have been 

formed out of them. Such states have no power to tax them; 

they cannot interfere with the primary disposal of them, or with 
the regulations of Congress for securing the title to purchasers; 
it. is in fact Congress alone, that can enact laws to affect them. 
The interest, which a citizen of an Atlantic state has in them, as 
a part of the property of the union, is the same as the interest of 
a citizen residing in a state formed out of them. But, hitherto^ 
appropriations of them for state purposes have only been made in 
favour of such states; and the citizen on the eastern side of the 
\lleghany may well complain, that property, in which he has a 



•^ 



16 

common interest with liis fellow-citizen on the western sidc^ 
should be appropriated exclusively to the use of the latter. That 
this is the fact in regard to that part of the public lands, which, 
have been assigned for the support of literary institutions and 
the promotion of education, cannot be denied. 

"Your Committee do not censure the enlightened policy, which 
governed Congress in making liberal appropriations of land for 
the encouragement of learning in the west, nor do they wish to 
withdraw one acre of them from the purposes, to which they have 
been devoted; but they think they are fully justified in saying, 
that impartial justice required, that similar appropriations should 
have been extended to all the states alike. Suppose Congress 
should appropriate 200,000 acres of the public lands for the sup- 
port of Colleges and Academies in New York; and Virginia, who 
gave up and ceded a great portion of those lands to the United 
States, on the express condition, that "they should be considered 
as a common fund for the use and benefit of all of them, accord- 
ing to their usual respective proportions in the general charge and 
expenditure,^'' should apply for a similar grant, and her applica- 
tion should be refused; — would she not have a right to complain 
of the partiality of such a measure, and to charge the Federal 
Government with a breach of good faith, and an infringement of 
the conditions, on which the cession was made? It cannot be 
denied, that she would. Congress have already made a grant of 
200,000 acres of land for the support of Colleges and Academies, 
not indeed in New York, but in Tennessee. Would not Virginia, 
if she now made an application for a like grant, and were refused, 
have the same reason to complain, as if New York, instead of 
Tennessee, had been the favoured state? 

"Your Committee beg leave to illustrate, by another example, 
the equity of the principle, which it is the object of this Report 
to establish. Foreign commerce and the public lands alike are 
legitimate sources, from which the United States may and do 
derive revenue. Foreign commerce has fixed its seat in the 
Atlantic states. Suppose Congress should pass a law, appro- 
priating one thirty-sixth part of the revenue, collected from 
foreign commerce in the ports of Baltimore, New York, Boston, 
Norfolk, Charleston and Savannah, to the support of common 
schools throughout the states, in which they are situated; tiie 



17 

other states, every person will admit, would have a right to com- 
plain of the partiality and injustice of such an act; — and yet, in 
what respect would an act appropriating one thirty-sixth pai't of 
the revenue, derived from foreign commerce to the use of schools 
in the six states, in which it should be produced, be more partial 
or unjust than an act appropriating one thirty-sixth part of the 
public land, in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Tennessee, Mississippi, 
and Alabama, the six states, in which the public lands on this 
side of the Mississippi are chiefly situated, to their exclusive 
benefit in the maintenance of their schools?" 

The Maryland Committee might have enforced their reasoning 
by a still more powerful and apposite illustration. Suppose 
Congress, instead of land, had appropriated for the support of 
common schools, one thirty -sixth part of the money arising from 
the sales of public land, in each of the states and territories 
formed out of them, could it refuse similar donations, upon the 
application of the other states, without a manifest violation of 
justice? 

In another part of their argument, the Maryland Committee 
remark, that they "are aware, that it has been said, that the 
appropriation of a part of the public lands to the purposes of 
education, for the benefit of the states formed out of them, has 
had the effect of raising the value of the residue, by inducing 
emigrants to settle upon them. Although in the preambles of 
such of the acts on this subject, as have preambles, the promotion 
of religion, morality and knowledge, as necessary to good gov- 
ernment and the happiness of mankind, have been assigned as 
the reason for passing them, and no mention has been made of 
the consequent increase in the value of the lands, that would 
remain, as a motive for the appropriation; yet the knowledge, 
that provision had been made for the education of children in the 
west, though other motives usually influence emigrants, might 
have had its weight in inducing some to leave their native homes. 
If such has been the effect, the value of the residue of the lands 
has no doubt been increased by it. This increase of value how- 
ever has not been an exclusive benefit to the Atlantic states; but 
a benefit common to all the states, eastern and western, while the 
latter still enjoy, exclusively, the advantage, derived from the 
appropi'iations of land for literary purposes. The incidental 



18 

advantage of the increase in value of the public lands, in conse- 
quence of emigration, if it is to be considered in the light of 
a compensation to the old states, must be shewn to be an ad- 
vantage exclusively enjoyed by them. That this however is not 
the case is perfectly obvious — ^because the proceeds of the lands, 
thus raised in value by emigration, when sold, go into the United 
States treasury, and are applied, like other revenues, to the 
general benefit — in other words, to national and not to state 
purposes, 

"It is moreover most clear, that this increase of the value of 
lands in consequence of emigration, produces a peculiar benefit 
to the inhabitants of the new states, in which the inhabitants of 
the other states, unless owners of land in the new, have no par- 
ticipation. This benefit consists in the increase of the value of 
their own private property. 

"On the other hand, it is undoubtedly true, that emigration is 
injurious to the Atlantic states, and to them alone. While it has 
had the effect of raising the price of lands in the west, it has, in 
an equal ratio at least and probably in a much greater, prevented 
the increase of the value of lands in the states, which the emi- 
grants have left. It is an indisputable principle in political 
economy, that the price of every object of purchase, whether 
land or personal property, depends upon the relation, which sup- 
ply bears to demand. The demand for land would have been the 
same, or very nearly so, for the same number of people, as are 
contained within the present limits of the United States, if they 
had been confined within the limits of the Atlantic states. But 
the supply in that case would have been most materially differ- 
ent. It must have been so small in proportion to the demand, as 
to occasion a great rise in the value of land in the Atlantic states; 
for it cannot be doubted, that it is the inexhaustible supply of 
cheap and good land in the west, which has kept down the price 
of land on the eastern side of the Alleghany. If the Atlantic 
states had been governed by an exclusive, local and selfish policy, 
every impediment would have been thrown in the way of emi- 
gration, which has constantly and uniformly operated to prevent 
the growth ot their numbers, wealth and power; for which dis- 
advantage the appreciation of their interest in the public lands, 
consequent upon emigration, can afford no adequate compensa- 



19 

tion. It appearing then perfectly clear to your Committee, that 
emigration is exclusively advantageous to the new states, whose 
population, wealth and power are thereby increased at the ex- 
pense of those states, which the emigrants abandon, the induce- 
ment to emigration furnished by the appropriation of public 
lands for the purposes of education in the west, instead of 
affording a reason for confining such appropriations to that 
quarter of the union, offers the most weighty considerations of 
both justice and policy, in favour of extending them to the states, 
which have not yet obtained them." 

Such are the principal arguments urged in the Maryland 
Report. The candid reader will judge of their weight. We 
apprehend, they ought to be considered conclusive in support of 
the claim set up for those states, in whose favour no appropria- 
tions of public land for the purposes of education have yet been 
made, unless it can be made to appear, that the citizens of the 
other states, to whom grants have been made, have paid not only 
a consideration^ but a full consideration or equivalent for them. 
This, in the opinion of the Massachusetts Committee, they have 
paid, in the higher price, which they have given for their lands, 
than they would have given, had no school reservations been 
annexed to them, and they' attempt to prove it by an elaborate 
argument, a clear view and statem.ent of which is sketched in 
the extract from their Report, which follows; 

*'But can these reservations,-' the Committee ask, "be justly 
considered as grants or donations to any state, in which they lie? 
A system for the survey and sale of the public lands has been 
adopted, originating in the celebrated ordinance of 20th of May, 
1785, before the adoption of the present constitution, and 
modified by sundry acts of Congress. According to this system, 
lands intended to be sold are surveyed before they are offered 
for sale, being actually divided into townships six miles square, 
and these sub-divided into thirty-six sections, each one mile 
square, and containirig 640 acres. One ot these sections, in each 
township, is uniformly reserved and given in perpetuity for the 
support of schools in the township. This plan being adopted and 
made known, before the township is offered for sale, it is mani- 
fest, that everjf purchaser, whether he take the whole or any part 
of a township, purchases his land with this privilege annexed, 



20 

and pays a full consideration for the privilege in the price given for 
the land, to wrhich such privilege is thus previously annexed. The 
United States, as proprietors of a township thus surveyed, offer it 
for sale on these terms; that if a purchaser, or company of pur- 
chasers will pay for the thirty-five sections, at the price fixed, 
they shall be entitled to a grant thereof in fee, and the United 
States will for ever hold the thirty -sixth section in trust for the 
use and benefit of such purchasers and their assigns, for the sup- 
port of schools. When land is taken at this offer, the contract 
becomes complete, and the United States are bound to execute 
this trust with fidelity; and it would be a manifest breach of 
faith, to compel such purchaser, in any shape, to pay a further 
equivalent for the privilege thus stipulated and paid for. But it 
would be obviously compelling such purchaser thus to pay again 
for this benefit, if in consequence of such reservations, other 
lands or other funds, should be appropriated to the use of all 
other citizens of the United States, from the benefit of which 
such purchaser should be excluded." 

The reasoning, contained in the above extract, places the ad- 
verse side of the question in a stronger point of view, than any 
we have seen, and appears at first satisfactory and even conclu- 
sive; but it will nevertheless be found, we apprehend, upon 
deeper reflection and closer sci'utiny, to be entirely unsupported 
both in principle and by facts. 

In endeavouring to answer this argument we shall take for 
granted, what we presume the Massachusetts Committee them- 
selves will not refuse to admit, that no consideration whatever 
has been paid for the school lots, unless a higher price has been 
given for the lands, to which they are annexed, than would have 
been paid, if no reservations Imd been made. 

Let us consider in the first place the principle, by which price 
is regulated. It will not be disputed, we presume, that the price 
of any thing, offered for sale vAthout restriction, depends upon 
the relation, which supply bears to demand. Intrinsic value does 
not determine it. Thus air, though necessary to existence, bears 
no price, because the supply is unlimited. Diamonds, on the 
contrary, which contribute chiefly to the gratification of vanity 
and the love of ostentation, and but little to purposes of real 



21 

utility, bear an enormous price, because extremely rare. This 
principle might, if necessary, be illustrated by a thousand 
familiar instances. We daily see the price of agricultural pro- 
duce and other commodities, rising and falling, as the relation 
between supply and demand alters, without any regard to quality 
or intrinsic value. Every planter and farmer knows, that his 
tobacco and wheat will sell high or low, as a demand for them is 
great or small in relation to the quantity raised and offered for 
sale. The case is the same with land. If a great number of 
farms in any neighbourhood be offered for sale, and there are 
but few purchasers, the price will be low. If, on the contrary, 
there are many purchasers and very few farms offered for sale, 
competition will raise the price very high. 

Let us now apply this plain, acknowledged and indisputable 
principle to the sale of the public lands; and while we do it, let 
it be borne in mind, that school lots are annexed to all the public 
lands oftered for sale. The quantity of these lands is for every 
practical purpose unlimited — the demand for them limited. It 
is plain, then, according to the above principle, the public lands 
would not bring more than some ten, fifteen, twenty, or twenty- 
five cents an acre, and probably not even so much, if a price was 
not fixed by law, below which they should not be sold. A com- 
plete proof of tliis is, that you can buy excellent military bounty 
lands, the owners of which are at liberty to sell them for what 
they please, for forty dollars per quarter section, or one hundred 
and sixty acres, that is, for twenty-five cents per acre. To these 
military bounty lands are annexed school reservations in the 
same proportion as to the public lands of the United States, And 
yet these public lands sold, until within a few years, at two dol- 
lars per acre, and now sell for one dollar and twenty-five cents, 
though not a whit better in quality or situation than the military 
bounty lands. To what cause then are we to attribute this differ- 
ence of price? Evidently not to the advantage of the school lots 
being annexed. For as we have just remarked, they are annexed 
to the military bounty lands as well as the public lands, and there 
is nothing to choose between them either in soil or situation. 
We are brought then irresistibly to the conclusion, that the dif- 
ference in price is solely and entirely attributable to the circum- 
stance, that the owners of the military bounty lands are at 



22 

liberty to sell them as loiv as they please, and the price is deter- 
mined by the relation, which supply bears to demand, whilst on 
the other hand, the law affixed formerly the price of two dollars, 
and now affixes the price of one dollar and twenty -five cents per 
acre, as the lowest, at which any of the public lands shall be sold. 

More than nineteen twentieths of the public lands, which have 
been disposed of, have been sold, it is believed, at the minimum 
price. In some instances indeed, they have been sold for more. 
In all these cases, however, it is confidently believed, that the 
price has been enhanced by some advantage of situation near 
navigable water or a town, or by some peculiarity of soil, which 
rendered the lands suitable for the cultivation of the more valu- 
able agi'icultural products, such as the sugar cane, for the growth 
of which there is comparatively a scanty supply of suitable land. 

Ther6 is no proof then, that the school lots, reserved in the 
new states, have been paid for in the enhanced price given for the 
lands, to which they are annexed. On the contrary, the reverse 
of this has been completely established in regard to all the lands, 
which have not been sold for more than the minimum price. It 
is incumbent then upon those, who oppose the Maryland Propo- 
sition, on the ground, that the school reservations have been paid 
for, to shew in the first place, that the lands to which they are 
annexed, have brought more than the minimum price; and 
secondly, if they have brought more, that the enhanced price is 
attributable to the advantage of the school lots, and not of local 
situation, which, it is confidently believed, cannot be done in a 
solitary instance. 

The foregoing train of argument, supported as it is by expe- 
rience and fact offers conclusive proof, that no higher price has 
been given for the nev/ lands, than would have been given, had 
no school reservations been made, and of course that no con- 
sideration whatever has been paid for the school lots, by the 
purchasers of the lands, to which they are annexed. They must, 
therefore, be taken to be, actually and truly donations to the 
people of the States and Territories formed out of the public lands, 
as they are repeatedly called in acts of Congress. Nor can we, af- 
ter diligent search, discover, either from Reports or Preambles of 
Acts, that they ever were intended by Congress for any other pur- 
pose than, (to adopt the language of the ordinance for the govern- 



23 

ment of the North Western Territory) the "promotion of reUgion, 
morality and knowledge'^ as "being necessary to good govern' 
ment and the happiness of mankind.''^ We have a right moreover 
to conclude, that this benevolent motive was the only one, which 
actuated Congress, from their liberality in making donations of 
land for the support of Colleges and Academies, which the Mas- 
sachusetts Committee acknowledge do not rest upon the same 
ground as the school grant, as well as the circumstance, that 
wherever sales or other dispositions of public land had been made 
previously to the organization of the system of school reserva- 
lions, as in the instances of the United States Military Tract, 
the Connecticut Reserve, and the Virginia Reservations in Ohio, 
the amount of the school lots has been supplied from other unsold 
lands. 

We do not, however, feel disposed to contend for the granting 
of the Maryland claim in favor of herself and the other states, 
similarly situated, on the ground, that Congress never intended 
the school reservations, (though we firmly believe they never did) 
as the means of raising the price of the public lands. We are 
willing to lay the intentions of Congress out of the question, and 
to admit that, if without intending it, the effect of the system has 
been to increase the price and to cause the purchasers of land to 
pay a higher price than they otherwise would have done, this cir- 
cumstance would give support to the argument of the Massachu- 
setts Committee; and the question which would then remain to 
be discussed would be, whether that increase of price amounted 
to a/w/Z, or only a partial consideration for the school grants. If 
only to a partial consideration, then the claim, advanced by Ma- 
ryland, is still good;, for it is perfectly consistent with both the 
spirit and letter of the resolution, setting forth that claim, to 
make an allowance to the favoured states for the amount of the 
consideration actually paid by them for their school reservations. 

We think, on the other hand, that it would be perfectly fair in 
Maryland, even if farther inquiry should establish the fact, that 
Congress, instead of being actuated solely by the benevolent and 
disinterested motives, which we ascribe to them, had devised the 
scheme of school reservations for the purpose of enhancing the 
price of their public lands, to contend, if in point of fact it had 
not produced that effect, (as we think we have fully proved,) 



that the Proposition contained in her Resolutions ought to be 
concurred in by all the other states, and granted by Congress. 

We should feel ourselves, moreover, perfectly authorised, if the 
school reservations were found actually to have had the effect of 
enhancing the price to the purchasers of the public lands, and 
thereby of benefitting the United States, to contend nevertheless, 
if this beneficial result in favour of the Treasury of tlie United 
States should upon investigation be found to be produced at the 
expense of the old states, and to arise from a system, which 
operated injuriously to them by drawing off their population and 
wealth, and thereby depressing the price of land and other pro- 
perty within their limits, as well as their relative political impor- 
tance in the union, that Congress would be bound by every prin- 
ciple of justice to remunerate those states, by a counterbalancing 
policy, in some form or other, for the loss thus sustained. Nor 
do we consider the circumstance, that this system, thus found to 
be injurious to the old states, received the sanction and support 
of their representatives in Congress, as having any bearing upon 
the question, as has been supposed. To contend, that their claim 
for the adoption of a remunerating policy, is barred and cut off 
by the act of their representatives, would be tantamount to as- 
serting the monstrous doctrine, that the unforseen evil and injus- 
tice of a system of policy originating with one set of represen- 
tatives, cannot be remedied and recompensed by another set, who 
have become satisfied by experience of its injurious tendency. 

If those, opposed to the Maryland Proposition, should be 
willing to admit, that we have satisfied them, that the purchasers 
of public lands have paid no consideration for their school lots, 
in the shape of an enhanced price for the lands they have bought, 
to which they are annexed, but should still, nevertheless, contend 
that the prospect held out of a provision for the education of the 
rising generation, had increased emigration to the new states, and 
had thereby caused the amount of sales, though not made at an 
enhanced price, to be greater than it otherwise would have been, 
and that this increased amount of sales had been beneficial to 
the United States, we cheerfully admit it, but protest against the 
inference they would draw from it, that the Maryland Reso- 
lutions have no ground left to support them. This benefit, arising 
from the increased amount of sales, the proceeds of which go 



25 

into the common Treasury of the United States, is -one, in which 
the new states participate equally with the old, while the former 
still enjoy exclusively the advantage of the provision for schools, 
made out of the common property of the union. To place the 
latter upon an equal footing, it is necessary that an equivalent 
provision should be made for their schools also out of the common 
property. This claim becomes peculiarly obvious and striking, 
when it is considered, that the benefit of the increased amount 
of sales, produced by increased emigration, in consequence of 
the school provision, has been obtained at the expense of the old 
states in the loss of their population and wealth, and the depres- 
sion of the value of property within their limits, while the 
operation of the system has the effect of benefitting to precisely 
the same extent, the new states, by increasing their wealth and 
population. This view of the subject places the claim of Mary- 
land and the other states similarly situated, in a most command- 
ing point of view, and shews conclusively, that they are not only 
entitled to be placed on a footing of equality in relation to the 
provision for schools, but are moreover entitled, in strict justice 
to an additional remuneration for the loss and injury, which the 
system, heretofore pursued, has occasioned them. That sys- 
tem has increased the revenue of the general government — in 
the advantage of which the eastern and western states have 
shared alike. Both classes of states are thus far on a footing of 
equality. But that system has likewise produced two very great 
benefits to the western states — a provision for education, and an 
increase of population and wealth, in which the eastern spates 
have had no share. Nay more, these benefits, thus exclusively 
enjoyed by the western states, have been produced at the 
expense of the eastern; for the provision for the schools in the 
west has been made out of property in which the eastern states 
have a common and equal interest with the western people, and 
from which therefore, they ought to derive a common and equal 
advantage, and just in proportion as the population and wealth of 
the western states have been increased by emigration, just in 
the same proportion, have the population and wealth of the 
eastern states been diminished.— And can any one, if this view 
of the case be correct, contend for ^ moment that the Maryland 
Proposition is unreasonable and extravagant, which only asks of 



26 

the General Goveniment, hereafter to place the old states upon a 
footing of equality with the new, in relation to appropriations for 
the promotion of education, and makes no claim whatever, as in 
strict justice it might, for recompence for the past loss of their 
wealth and population, and the consequent depreciation of their 
property, and^the diminution of their relative political weight in 
the union? 

Having thus attempted, (with what success the impartial reader 
vnW judge,) to answer the objections made to the Maryland 
Resolutions by the Massachusetts Committee, and to set right their 
mistakes and unintentional misrepresentations of it, we proceed to 
examine a ground, taken in opposition to them in the Ohio Report, 
and a Report of a Committee on the Public Lands to the Senate 
of the United States. It is this, tliat the condition imposed upon 
the new states, by the compact, set forth in the former part of 
these remarks, not to tax lands, sold by the United States for five 
years after their sale, is a consideration paid by them for the 
school reservations. The Ohio Committee consider it a full 
consideration — the Committee on Public Lands in the United 
States Senate, on the contrary, allow the ground taken in the 
Maryland Report to be well supported as to the principle, and, 
in admitting, that it is expedient to grant something out of the 
sales of the public lands for the aid of schools in the old states, 
acknowledge that the condition above mentioned, ought not to be 
considered as a full consideration or equivalent for the appro- 
priations for schools in the new states. 

To judge whether the opinion of the Ohio Committee be cor- 
rect, it is necessary to take into the calculation, not only the 
amount of the public lands, reserved for the promotion of edu- 
cation, but also the value of the Salt Springs and road fund, 
granted likewise on the same condition. That road fund con- 
sisted originally of one twentieth part, or five per cent of the 
nett proceeds of public land sold within the state, to be ex- 
pended in roads leading from the navigable waters, falling into 
tlie Atlantic, to and through the state, and to be laid out under 
the authority of Congress. By a subsequent act in 1803, in lieu 
of this twentieth, the Secretary of the Treasury was directed to 
pay to such person, as may be authorised by the Legislature of 
Ohio to receive the same, three per centum oi the net proceeds of 



public lands, sold within the state, to be applied in making roads 
within the state. The amount, which has been and will be 
received under this law, is admitted by the Governor of Ohio, 
in a communication to the Legislature on the 4th December, 1821, 
to be not less than §600,000. With great deference to such high 
authority, when we take into consideration the large amount of 
public lands, which are already sold, and that at the date of the 
message, there were still remaining, accoi'ding to a Report of the 
Commissioner of the General Land Ofl&ce, almost 14,000,000 of 
acres unsold, we should estimate the value of this road fund at 
a much greater amount. Throwing the Salt Springs then out of 
the question, the value of which we have access to no means of 
estimating, we may fairly conclude, that the three per cent road 
fund is a full equivalent for the amount of taxes, that would be 
levied by a state, not oppressive, upon the same lands, from which 
it arises, for five years after their sale, when it is considered, that 
during that period not one half of them will be settled, and not 
one twentieth part of them productive from cultivation or any 
other cause. The highest rate of taxation, which we can possibly 
suppose would be adopted, would be less annually than one third 
of one per centum of the value of the lands. Multiplying tliis 
one third of one per centum by five, and estimating the value of 
the land at the price for which they have been sold, the result will 
be one and two thirds per centum of that value for the tax of the 
five years, less by one and one third per cent, than three per cent. 
If we deduct, with the Committee of Massachusetts, twenty-five 
per cent from the gross sales, for the expenses of sale and survey, 
three per cent, upon the net proceeds, M'hich would remain, would 
still be greater in amount, than the taxes, that might have been 
levied upon the same lands for five years after their sale, at the 
rate supposed. We see then in this three per cent road fund, 
that Ohio receives more than an equivalent for the taxes, which 
she is restrained from imposing for five years. The school lands 
and the Salt Springs must both therefore be considered as purely 
donations from Congress to that state. 

Let us now examine this subject in another point of view, and 
inquire, whether the obligation imposed upon Ohio, by the act 
admitting her into the union, not to tax the lands sold by the 
United States for five years after the sale, is not henefidal rather 



28 

than injurious in its eftects to that state. The obvious and the 
chief effect, which this exemption from taxes is caluculated to 
produce, is to increase emigration to the new states. An exemption 
from taxes, however moderate, may be deemed important by poor 
settlers, who for the first few years are struggling for a subsis- 
tence. What then is the eftect of this increased emigration 
upon Ohio herself? Obviously to benefit her in a most essential 
point, by inducing emigrants to leave other states to settle there. 
The object most dear to the heart of Ohio, when she first came 
into the union with but one representative in Congress, must 
have been to increase her population. To promote that object her 
own Legislature, if the stipulation with the government of the 
United States had not rendered its interference unnecessary, 
would, if true policy governed it, have passed a law granting the 
same exemption from taxes. A compliance then with the con- 
dition, upon which she received the invaluable grants of the 
United States for schools and roads, so far from being burthen- 
some, has been beneficial, and contributed to promote her primary 
interest. This pepper corn consideration then, nay this considera- 
tion, which has enhanced the value of the very thing which has 
been received for it, might be urged by a lawyer, who was arguing 
the point, whether the United States were now at liberty to annul 
their contract with Ohio and withdraw their donations; but it is 
absurd to call it an equivalent for them. I may give one of my 
sons a deed of a valuable estate en condition, that he shall have 
industry and prudence enough to manure a given number of 
acres annually from the marlpits that are scattered over it. A 
compliance with this condition, though beneficial to himself, 
would deprive me of the power in point of law, of taking back 
the estate and annuUi. 3; the deed, but who would consider it an 
equivalent for my boijnty? And, a fortion, who would consider it 
a bar to my making a similar grant to another son? 

As Ohio, from this view of the subject, appears to have suffered 
no detriment from the restriction of her power to tax the lands, 
sold by the United States for five years, but on the contrary to 
have derived a benefit in the increase of her population and 
wealth, more than equivalent to the loss of the taxes, the infer- 
ence would seem to be fair, not only, that the school lands and 
Salt Springs, but the road fund also are donations. 



29 

We need hardly remind the reader, that the same reasoning, 
which applies to Ohio, is equally applicable to all the states 
formed out of the public lands. 

If nevertheless, after a full investigation of the subject, this 
exemption of the public lands from taxation, for five years after 
their sale, be considered injurious to the new states, whose popu- 
lation and wealth it has a tendency to increase at the expense of 
the old states, let it be abolished. It was stipulated by Congress 
with reference to the system of credit sales of public lands, 
according to which the deed, conveying the title of the United 
States to the purchaser, was rarely executed until the fifth year 
after sales were made. That system is now abolished, and sales 
for cash introduced. Payment being made at the time of sale, 
the title of the United States is at the same time transferred to 
the purchaser, and the exemption from taxes for five years is no 
longer necessary. If the new states complain of this exemption 
as burthensome, let it be done away. The old states, whose 
population and wealth it has a tendency to diminish, will not 
object to its repeal. A very small part only of the public lands, 
have as yet been sold, and, if Congress, upon viewing the subject 
in all the lights of whica it is susceptible, should think the new 
states entitled to remuneration for the past restriction of their 
right to levy taxes upon that small part, let them make whatever 
further grant of public land may be deemed an adequate com- 
pensation. The Atlantic states, seeking for justice themselves, 
are perfectly willing it should, in every respect, be done to others. 
Their only aim is to be put upon a footing of equality with their 
sister states. To effect that purpose, in such way as Congress 
shall think just and right, is the only object of the Maryland 
Resolutions; and if Congress, upon a full examination and mature 
reflection, should be of opinion that the new states must still be 
considered as purchasers for a valuable, though not an equivalent 
consideration, let them grant to the old states appropriations of 
land for the purposes of education, upon equally favorable terms. 
In other words, let them give as good bargains to the old states 
as they have to the new. 

We do not think it necessary to discuss an extraordinary 
ground, taken by the Ohio Committee, that property belonging to 
some of the old states^ and admitted by common consent, before 



30 

any new states were formed, to belong to them, and never 
claimed' by the United States, should, before school grants can 
with propriety be made in compliance with the Maryland Reso- 
lutions, be brought into the common fund; nor another still more 
extraordinary ground, taken by that Committee, which however, 
we think it proper to mention, that it may be seen to what strange 
arguments they have felt it necessary to resort for the purpose of 
resisting the just claim set forth in those Resolutions. The ground 
is this, that in the cession of the North Western Territory, in- 
cluding Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Michigan, by Virginia, a con- 
dition was annexed, that the states, to be formed out of the ceded 
Territory, should be "distinct republican states, and admitted as 
members of the Federal Union, having the same rights of sove- 
reignty, freedom and independence, as the other states." And 
they draw from this circumstance the extraordinary inference, 
that those states have not only a right to tax the public lands 
within their limits, notwithstanding the ordinance of Congress to 
the contrary, passed previously to their admission, but have a 
right to claim those lands as their property, notwithstanding the 
same instrument of cession by Virgina, expressly stipulates, that 
"all the lands within the Territory, so ceded to the United States, 
shall be considered as a common fund, for the use and benefit of 
such of the United States, as have become or shall become mem- 
bers of the Confederation or Federal Alliance of the states, 
Virginia inclusive, according to their usual respective proportions 
in the general charge and expenditure; and shall he faithfully and 
bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no other use or pur- 
pose whatever^ 

The first stipulation, above recited in favour of the states to 
be formed out of the North Western Territory, manifestly re- 
lates solely to political rights; whereas, the latter as evidently 
refers to and indicates rights of property, ideas extremely dis- 
tinct in their nature, but which the Ohio Committee seem 
strangely to have confounded. 

It has been objected, that Congress cannot appropriate a part 
of the public lands to the purpose of promoting education in the 
several states, without a violation of the public faith; inasmuch 
as the net proceeds of the sales of public lands have by several 
acts of Congress been pledged for the payment of the public debt. 



31 

In answer to this objection we would say, that this pledge can 
be fairly understood to mean nothing more than that, when- 
ever the public lands are sold for the purpose of raising revenue, 
the net pi-oceeds of them shall be applied towards the extinction 
of the public debt. Congress were in the habit both before, and 
since these pledges were made, of appropriating the public land 
to a variety of specific purposes, and of course, the public 
creditors, when they received these pledges, were bound to under- 
stand them as extending only to the net proceeds of ordinary 
sales, and not as amounting to a mortgage of the whole amount 
of the public lands. If the latter unlimited construction be cor- 
rect, all the laws granting military bounty lands are made in vio- 
lation of the public faith, a supposition which, we believe, has 
never for a moment been entertained. The pledge then, as 
intended by Congress, and as understood by the creditors of the 
United States, extends not to the lands themselves, but only to 
the net proceeds of sales, made in the ordinary course of law for 
the purposes of revenue. Of course no objection to the Maryland 
Resolutions upon this ground is tenable. 

Nor is the objection more tenable, which has been made on the 
ground of expediency, on account of the quantity of public lands, 
which would be requisite to satisfy the just claims of the Atlantic 
states and Kentucky; as it is clearly shewn in the Maryland 
Report, that less than two and a half per centum of the four 
hundred millions of acres, which according to Seybert's Statisti- 
cal Annals, belong to the United States, will be sufficient for that 
purpose, if the plan proposed in the subsequent part of these 
remarks should be adopted. 

If we have been successful, as we hope, in our humble attempt 
to prove, that the school appropriations in favour of the states, 
formed out of the public lands, have not been paid for in the 
enhanced price, given by tlie purchasers of the lands, to which 
they are annexed, nor by the exemption for five years of the 
lands, sold by the United States, from taxation by the states, 
within whose limits they lie, we apprehend, that the inference 
must be admitted, that the Maryland Resolutions are founded 
in justice, and that the claim therein set forth, in favour of the 
states, which have had no appropriations of public lands for the 
purposes of education ought to be granted. 



32 

We shall now endeavour, according to the order prescribed in 
the beginning of these remarks, to discuss the mode in which the 
objects of the Maryland Resolutions may be obtained. 

The principal difficulty in fixing upon a plan, which shall 
secure equal justice to all, arises from the difference in the cir- 
cumstances of the states, in whose favour appropriations of 
school lands have been made, and of the others. The former are 
made out of the public lands. The fund for education therefore, 
is at hand, and actually consists of a part of each township, 
reserved in its centre. The latter have no lands belonging to the 
United States within their limits. Of course a fund must be 
raised out of lands, situated at a distance, within the boundaries 
of other states and territories. 

The people being the subjects of education, an appropriation for 
that purpose in the different states, ought to be proportioned to 
numbers; and this in beneficial effect has, in the states formed out 
of the public lands, been accomplished, however paradoxical the 
assertion may at first appear. 

Let it be recollected, that the school grants in these states are 
reservations in perpeptuity of lots No. 16, i i the centre of every 
township. These lots can never be sold. Their value as a fund 
for the promotion of education, depends upon the rent which 
they will bring. In unsettled tovynships they will bring none. 
In townships, thinly settled, where land, in fee simple, can be 
purchased cheaply, they will bring but little. But they will 
command a high rent in townships thickly settled, where 
the price of land in fee simple will be high, and rentable land 
of course in demand. In short, cceteris paribus, the rent of these 
school lots will be in proportion to population. Their value there- 
fore, as a fund for the support of schools, will be proportionate 
to numbers, and ivill increase with them — an advantage, by the 
way, incident to the local situation of the new states carved out 
of the public lands, which cannot be extended to the other states; 
for when lands at a great distance shall be appropriated to the 
latter for the purposes of education, they must necessarily be 
sold, and when sold, the value of the fund becomes fixed, and 
cannot increase. 

From the foregoing view, it appears, that the school grants in 
the new states, though in form they are proportioned to territo- 



ii'iai extent, operate nevertheless beneficially in a just proportioii 
to population, and of course, 'as respects those states, in en* 
tire conformity with the spirit of justice and the principles of 
the Constitution, as well as the meaning of the condition of the 
cessions by Virginia and the other states, to wit, that the lands 
ceded should enure to the benefit of the states, "accordino- to 
their usual respective proportion in the general charge and ex- 
penditure," which is in proportion to representation in Congress, 
and of course in proportion to federal numbers. 

Although the Massachusetts Committee were mistaken in 
supposing, that the Maryland Legislature had proposed terri- 
torial extent, as the basis of a ratio by which public lands, if 
granted by Congress, should be distributed amongst the Atlantic 
states and Kentucky, yet it is true, hat m the Maryland Report 
a calculation was made upon that basis. The principal object, 
however, of that calculation, was to shew the aggregate quantity 
to which, according to it, they would be entitled. And this rat o^ 
I think, upon mature reflection, is the best that can be adopted, 
for the purpose of ascertaining the aggregate number of acres, 
which justice as well as sound policy requires to be assigned for 
the benefit of those states. For, although the number of acres 
devoted to the purpose of education in the west, be much greater, 
in relation to present population, than would fall to the lot of the 
east, yet, in fact, no stibstantial injustice will be done; for it is to 
be borne in mind, that the school lands in the states, formed out 
of the public lands, are reserved in perpetuity, in the middle of 
each township, and of course wdll be of no use or value for the 
purposes of education, as has just been shewn, until the town- 
ships are peopled; so that, in fact, as to practical benefit, the 
grants in the west will be operative according to population, 
though, in form, they are made upon the basis of territory. 

The territorial apportionment is the only one practicable, as 
between the two great divisions of the country, comprising, on the 
one hand, the states and territories w4iich have received grants, 
and on the other, the states for whose benefit none have been made. 
On the basis of population, the latter would be entitled to four 
times as much as has been given to the former. This would 
require an amount of appropriation for the purposes of education 
which sound policy, in reference to revenue, would forbid, and 



34 

which, though equal at ^jresm^, would operate most unjustly ou 
ihie, future population of the west. On the contrary, it cannot l>e 
concealed, that the territorial apportionment gives an advantage 
to the states formed out of the public lauds, which it is imprac- 
ticable to extend to the others. The advantage consists in this; 
'that the school lands in the former, being reserved in perpetuity 
for the promotion of education, can never be sold, and,^ therefore, 
constitute a fund, which will continue to augment in value in 
proportion to the increase of population; and an acre of land, 
which, upon the first settlement of a township, would not, if ex- 
posed to sale, bring two dollars, may, in process of time, whea 
population becomes dense, be worth fifty or even a hundred 
dollars. 

This is a view of the subject, which, if those heretofore pre- 
sented be not deemed sufficient, ought surely to silence all ob- 
jections from the Avestern states on the score of the stipulation 
made not to tax the lands sold by the United States for five years 
after their sale; for, after making all the deduction on this 
account, that can possibly come within the bounds of reason, the 
advantage, arising from this mode of distribution, and resulting 
from their local situation, will still lie on the side of those states. 
It is hoped, however, as there is no certain or even probable rule, 
by which this relative advantage can be estimated, and as an 
attempt to value it would involve the subject in endless diffi- 
culty, that the states, which have as yet received no grants, will 
be actuated by a patriotic spirit of conciliation and compromise, 
and remain satisfied with a territoral apportionment, as between 
them and their more fortunate sisters of the west. 

Should Congress adopt this territorial apportionment, as the 
rule, by which to ascertain the quantity to which the Atlantic 
states and Kentucky are entitled, let them then authorize the 
President by law, to cause to be selected out of such parts of the 
public domain, as he may deem expedient, and to be laid off in 
the same manner as military bounty lands have heretofore been 
laid oiF, a number of tracts, in different parts of the public landsy 
which shall in the aggregate make up the quantity required. 
These lands, being distant from the states, for whose benefit they 
are intended, and within the jurisdiction of others, cannot, either 
M'ith advantage or convenience, be distributed amongst them 



35 

j-espectively, either for the purpose of rent or sale. The ob^ 
jections to such a plan are too obvious and striking, to require 
any notice of them. Let them then be sold under the authority 
of Congress, according to the laws regulating the sale of other 
public lands, at such times, and in such quantities, as to them 
may appear expedient, and let the proceeds be paid over, by the 
Secretary of the Treasury, to Commissioners appointed by each 
of the states entitled to receive a share, in such proportions as 
may be determined by Congress. Let these Commissioners be 
obliged to render an annual account of the application of these 
proceeds to the Secretary of the Treasury in the same manner, 
as the Commissioners of the three per cent road fund in the new 
states now do. 

According to this plan, no land could be sold below the mini- 
mum price of other public lands, and Congress would have it in 
their power to guard against any inconvenience on the score of 
revenue, by prohibiting the sale of school lands, whenever from a 
stagnation of trade or other causes, the receipts into the Treasury 
from other sources, than the sale of public lands, should be inade- 
quate to the exigences of the government. On the other hand, 
whenever revenue should be abundant, and be amply sufficient to 
meet all demands upon the Treasury, without the aid of the pro- 
ceeds of sales of public lands, Congress might direct a larger 
portion of the school lands to be brought into the market. 

But after the proceeds of the school lands are paid into the 
Treasury, and Commissioners are appointed by each of the states 
interested, to receive their respective shares, a point of greater 
difficulty, than any which we have discussed, presents itself. In 
what proportions shall the proceeds of the school lands be di- 
vided amongst the several states entitled to receive them.^ Shall 
they be distributed according to extent of territory, according to 
population, or according to a ratio compounded of hoth? These 
are the three different bases of apportionment, which most obvi- 
ously present themselves. It is manifest, however, when we 
take into consideration tlie various and rapid change of relative 
population in the several states, that there is no rule by which 
exact justice can be done, or rather by which it can be ascer^ 
tained, what would be exac^ justice. The members of Congress, 
from the different states interested, must therefore be sensible of 



S6 

the necessity of bringing into the settlement of this difficult 
point a coaciliating temper, and endeavour, in a spirit of equity, 
to make such a compromise of conflicting interests and preten- 
sions, as will, under the various aspects of which the subject is 
susceptible, be most likely to satisfy the ends of reciprocal 
justice. 

In considering this subject, let it be borne in mind, that the ap- 
propriation in question, is intended to i-aise a permanent fund for 
the benefit, not only of i\\Q present generation, but for all ;; 'S^e- 
tity. This provision in the states, formed out of the public 
land, as has heretofore been shown, will be constantly increasing 
in value in each township, in which the school section is re- 
served, in proportion to the increase of the population. Al- 
though made, therefore, upon a territorial basis, it nevertheless is 
perfectly equitable as it respects population. This, however, 
would -not be the result of a teirit rial apportionment in the 
states, which have not been formed out of the public lands. 

The object to be obtained by the appropriation now asked for, 
is the education of the peaple of the several states. Justice 
would seem to require, then, that it should be distributed 
according to the numbers to be educated. A territorial appor- 
tionment, therefore, when we consider the inequality of the po- 
pulation in the several states, in reference to their extent, would 
be far from equitable. 

On the other harid, a numerical apportionment, though it would 
be just at the moment when made, would cease to be so, as soon 
as the relative population of the states should change, the pro- 
vision in question being for the/w^wre as well as i]\Q. present. It 
is obvious, also, as the land appropriated must be sold by de- 
grees, and the proceeds be gradually paid over and invested by 
the states, as received, a numerical ratio fixed this yeai-, would 
not be applicable to the next, A just numerical apportionment 
vi^ould, therefore, be impracticable. 

From the above views, a compound ratio of population and ex- 
tent of territory would seem to be the one, which, under all cir- 
cumstances, would be most equitable. In other words, let one- 
tialf of the proceeds of the aggregate quantity of land, which 
shall be assigned to satisfy the just claims of the states, which 
liave yet had no grants for the purposes of educa.tion, be distri: 



37 

butcd amongst them according to their federal numbers, and the 
other half according to their extent of' territory respectively. 

This plan, if the population of the future, as well as the pre- 
sent, be taken into consideration, would ultimately distribute the 
benefits of the education fund more nearly, than any other rule, 
according to numbers. Thus, the present generation, in states 
of large extent and sparse population, would have a better 
proportion for education, than the inhabitants of the states, 
covered with a dense population. On the other hand, although 
the provision for the education of the present generation in 
thickly settled states, will not be so good in proportion to num- 
bers, as it will be in the states with a thin population; yet past 
experience in relation to the progress of population, ^^hich nat- 
urally tends to vacant territory, teaches us to expect, that this 
disadvantage will be daily diminishing, and when the population 
becomes equally dense, or neai-ly so in all the states, an equiva- 
lent advantage will be enjoyed by those states, which have at pre- 
sent a dense population. 

According to this plan, then, the states with a dense popula- 
tion, will gain in future, what they lose at the present time; and 
the states with a sparse population, will lose at a future period, 
what they gain dit present. And thus the account of advantage 
and disadvantages will not only be settled by the diilerent 
states but also between the present generation and posterity. 

In whatever point of view, then, this subject is placed, the 
compound ratio of apportionment will manifestly come nearer to 
the poiiit of equal and exact justice, than any other that has been 
suggested. 

Such are the outlines of a plan for carrying the Maryland Re- 
solutions into effect, which, though others more suitable to the 
purpose may be suggested, appear to us to be practicable, and 
well adapted to the attainment of the object proposed by them. 
We beg leave to observe, that in this feeble attempt to promote 
that object, we have abstained raising the general arguments, 
\Ahich might be urged to show the expediency of devoting a 
small part of the public domain, to the purpose of enlightening 
the mind and elevating the character of a free people. These 
would be more particularly appropriate and necessary, if the 
question \vere now an original cue, and no partial appropriatiQii» 



38 

had hitherto been made. We have, therefore, confined ourselves 
to the limits, that were occupied by the Maryland Report, 
which first called the attention of the other states to this sub- 
ject, and which embraced such arguments only, as were cal- 
culated to show, that equal and impartial justice, as well as the 
spirit of our federal compact, required, that appropriations of 
public lands, proportional to such as had already been made in 
favour of a part of the states, should be extended to all. That 
Report does not complain of the grants to the hitherto favoured 
states, nor aim at divesting a single right or privilege, which has 
been given them. On the contrary, it applauds the wisdom and 
patriotism, which gave birth to so enlightened and liberal a 
system of policy and only contends, that equity now requires an 
extension of it to all parts of the country alike. It does not 
presume to prescribe the mode in which justice shall be done, 
but merely asks of Congrees to do it in such a way, as to them 
shall seem expedient and effectual. 

"We have attempted in these remarks, to answer such objec- 
tions to the Maryland Proposition, as have arisen from a misap- 
prehension of its nature. We have also endeavoured to obviate 
such as are applicable to the measures, which have been sup- 
posed to be necessary to carry the principle of it into effect, ra- 
ther than to the principle itself, by venturing, with great defe- 
rence, to suggest a practicable plan, for placing, as nearly as the 
nature of things will allow, all the states of the Union upon an 
equal footing. This plan, together with the arguments which we 
have offered in support of the Maryland Resolutions, as well as 
in answer to the objections which have been made to them, we 
now submit to a candid and impartial public, and will only add^ 
that those Resolutions appear to us to be founded in the strictest 
principles of justice and sound policy. Their object is to pro- 
vide the means of enlightening the people, who are not only the 
only legitimate source of power, but also the tribunal, by which 
the proper exercise of it is to be finally tried. The stability of 
our free institutions, therefore, depends upon a general diffusion 
of knowledge. No axiom in political science is clearer than that 
EDUCATION should be co-extensive with the right of suffrage. 
To make it so, is the ultimate object of the Maryland Resolu- 
tions. Their success is connected with the highest interests of 



39 



ireedom and good government; and the Congress uhich shall 
carry into effect the great national scheme of education, AvhicU 
they propose, will build up an everlasting monument to their own 
fame, in the perpetuity which it will ensure to the libertv and 
glory of their country. 



